Agenda item

To inform the members of the Community and Wellbeing Scrutiny Committee of the provision and management of Brent Council’s Temporary Accommodation and Homeless Prevention Service since the last report to the Committee in November 2023.

Peter Gadsdon (Corporate Director Partnerships, Housing and Residents Services, Brent Council) introduced the report which informed the Committee of the provision and management of Brent Council’s Temporary Accommodation and Homeless Prevention Service, including an update on the support for families in the borough who were homeless or at risk of homelessness and the performance of services, demand for services and improved outcomes for service users. In introducing the report, he highlighted the housing crisis that London was in with high demand for housing and the large overspend this was driving in the Council budget. He then introduced Housing Needs colleagues who had attended to answer questions from the Committee – Zorba Emelonye (Service Manager – Housing Options, Brent Council) and Komal Samra (Service Manager – Accommodation Services, Brent Council) and thanked them for the hard work they were doing in the current environment.

Councillor Butt (as Leader and Cabinet Member for Housing, Regeneration, Planning and Growth) expanded on the introduction, highlighting that the housing situation being faced in Brent was something Brent had never seen before and the pressure and demand for housing was unprecedented. The Council had started a ‘Find Your Home’ scheme emphasising the need for residents to find a property they could afford, which may not be in Brent where were becoming increasingly unaffordable. As a result of the lack of affordable accommodation in Brent and London, the Temporary Accommodation (TA) spend was increasing due to the Council needing to acquire very expensive accommodation. In addition, the chance of a tenant being allocated a Council home was very slim with a very long waiting list. As such, the Council was encouraging people to find a place they could afford in a place they wanted to go, and whilst it was recognised that people preferred to remain in Brent due to their family and local connections, this was becoming more unlikely to be affordable.

The Chair thanked presenters for their introduction and invited comments and questions from the Committee, with the following issues raised:

The Committee praised the hard work of the service in response to the pressures. As local councillors, the expectations of residents were very high and there was a lack of understanding of the emergency situation the Council was in. They confirmed that members would continue to try to get the message out to the public regarding the housing situation.

In relation to the graph under paragraph 4.10 of the report showing the total number of homeless households each year from 2015 – 2024/5, the Committee highlighted that the Council had successfully halved the number of people living in TA between 2015 and 2021, but it had then gradually increased again. They asked what the narrative behind that was and how it compared to other boroughs. Laurence Coaker (Director of Housing Needs, Brent Council) advised that the increase was due to the impact of the covid-19 pandemic. Pre-pandemic the Council had been doing well at reducing TA numbers as a result of a homelessness prevention approach where the service had been able to engage with landlords and negotiate with them to prevent evictions. Pre-pandemic, the Private Rented Sector (PRS) had been functioning effectively and the Council was able to procure approximately 35-40 properties per month for the prevention or discharge of homelessness duty. Post-pandemic, landlords had been exiting the market following the freeze on evictions that had been enforced during lockdown, following the increase in interest and mortgage rates post-pandemic which landlords had been passing on to renters. There were also exits from the market due to the incoming Renters Reform Bill which aimed to put an end to Section 21 no fault evictions. As such, the main factor driving the homelessness figures and obstructing the prevention and relief of homelessness was the contraction of the PRS. In terms of benchmarking with other boroughs, Brent was around mid-table for numbers in TA. Newham had the highest number of residents in TA with over 5,000, compared to Brent’s 2,000.

In response to a query regarding eligibility for emergency accommodation, Laurence Coaker explained that eligibility related to an individual’s immigration status and was dictated by legislation. Before any family was booked in to emergency bed and breakfast they needed to meet the eligibility criteria. For example, an Asylum Seeker did not have any status in the UK, meaning that under homelessness legislation they were not eligible and the Housing Need service could not accommodate that person, with the Home Office taking responsibility for accommodating Asylum Seekers. Once an Asylum Seeker was granted status in the UK then they become eligible for the local authority to accommodate. As such, every household in emergency bed and breakfast accommodation would be eligible for support and not awaiting assessment.

In response to queries around how many households in TA were being successfully housed by the Council, officers highlighted that homelessness was no longer a route to social housing which was the message the Council were trying to impress upon the public, using a communications strategy to educate the public about what they could expect. It was explained that homelessness was a crisis situation and therefore required a crisis response and something instant. The tables in the report showed that, because of the supply and demand issues for social housing, people were waiting on the housing list for 15-20 years before they were allocated social housing, which was not a response to homelessness. Now there were over 1,000 tenants in bed and breakfast and the way the Council was trying to end their homelessness was through getting them into PRS accommodation and also encouraging them to find their own PRS accommodation that the Council could help financially to secure. Pre-pandemic, the Council had been able to get around 35-40 households per month into PRS, but post pandemic this was closer to 3 per week. On the ‘Find Your Home’ scheme there had only been around 8-9 secured over the previous few months, showing that not many people were finding their own, likely because they could not find any PRS in Brent where they wanted to live.

The Committee asked whether the Council had a policy for reducing the use of hotels in Wembley for the use of TA. Laurence Coaker explained that the use of Wembley hotels had been commissioned by the Home Office pre-pandemic for the use of housing Asylum Seekers and therefore the Council had no control over that. One of the larger hotels had recently been decommissioned by the Home Office and the Council were in negotiations to take over. In terms of the Councils general approach towards hotel accommodation, officers explained that this was governed by law. The Council only used hotels, bed and breakfast, and interim accommodation during the period that Housing Needs was assessing a case during the relief duty period of 56 days. Once that assessment was completed and the Council either accepted the main duty or not, that household should be moved on. The difficulty was there was no available accommodation to move those households on to.

The Chair invited Brent Youth Parliament to contribute. They asked whether Housing Needs had an understanding of how many young people aged between 16-25 years old were in housing need and whether the work being done to improve employability skills of those in housing need took young people into consideration specifically. Officers advised that Housing Need worked in partnership with the children’s service regarding 16-18 year olds. For 18-25 year olds in housing need there were statistics for how many were considered a single homeless person which could be provided after the meeting. It was not possible to get the figures on how many 16-25 year olds were part of families that were considered homeless. It was added that the statistics for single homelessness tended to show an older age group rather than 18-25 year olds. There was a separate policy for care leavers with children’s services, and the Council aimed to obtain social housing for that cohort to offer stability and security of tenure. In relation to the work being done to improve employability skills, officers confirmed there were schemes to help people into employment as the link between affordability and homelessness was well proven and if the Council could get people into employment that increased their chances and opportunities to find a property they could afford. This was a general service to help all people in need of support with nothing specifically aimed towards younger people.

In relation to supply, the Committee noted that there was a high number of empty properties in the borough and asked whether there was a policy around undertaking Compulsory Purchase Orders (CPOs) to bring empty properties back into use for the purpose of alleviating homelessness. Peter Gadsdon confirmed that the Council had a Private Rented Sector (PRS) Service who dealt with empty properties in the borough that did not belong to the Council to bring them back into use. Spencer Randolph provided further details, highlighting that the Council had a proactive Empty Homes Team of 3 officers who encouraged owners to bring their properties back into use through various routes. For example, the team could offer landlords grant assistance to refurbish them and bring them back into use, and there was the threat of enforcement. However, the Council avoided enforcement routes where possible as it was a very lengthy and costly process to bring only a few properties back into use. The Council had recently completed a CPO and it had taken 5 years to go through that process. Councillor Butt added that the government had began discussions around right to buy and reducing the discounts for that, but if the CPO route could be made simpler that would be helpful to Councils.

The Committee noted that some accommodation was being found outside of the borough in areas like High Wycombe and Wendover and asked if that approach was likely to continue. Laurence Coaker explained that the reason the Council was having to look out of borough in those areas was because the Council had a statutory duty to provide accommodation when a household became homeless and if Brent or London was full due to the contraction of the PRS then the Council had no choice but to look elsewhere to prevent families from being homeless. The Council was receiving around 130 applications per week for housing need. The Council was also being proactive at encouraging people to find their own affordable properties that worked for them.

The Committee noted the length of time some tenants were remaining in TA, highlighting that for some TA seemed to have become permanent. Laurence Coaker explained that this was due to the gap between the supply of social housing and the demand. Anyone in TA was considered a priority, and was placed in priority band C. Bands A-C could all bid for properties through Locata.

The Committee asked whether Locata was fit for purpose. They were advised that Locata acted as a vehicle for allocating properties using a choice-based letting system, which meant people were able to bid for the properties they wanted and was more effective than the previous allocations scheme.

The Committee asked how helpful the grants the Council received were in relieving homelessness. Laurence Coaker advised they were very helpful but not enough to improve the situation. The Homelessness Prevention Grant was tied to the Council’s performance in the prevention of homelessness and the number of people in TA, and whilst the government had announced an uplift in the recent budget, it was still not enough to close the gap.

The Committee asked how the number of presentations Brent Council was receiving compared to neighbouring boroughs. Officers explained that presentation numbers were high in Brent compared to sub-regional neighbours, but that it was more realistic to compare Brent to areas with similar demographics and size such as Newham and Haringey where Brent had similar presentation numbers.

In response to a query on how many households presenting in Brent were living in Brent or had came from outside of the borough, Laurence Coaker advised that the majority of presentations were from people who already lived in Brent. The legislation allowed for the Council to apply a local connection rule where if a household presented with no local connection to Brent they would be referred to where they did have local connections. There were also family reunion cases where an Asylum Seeker had received status in the UK and had applied for their family to join them from abroad, which Brent received a disproportionate amount of due to the attractiveness of Brent being a diverse borough. As to whether the Council was keeping those families in Brent, officers advised that the Council did try to accommodate them in Brent or London but many of the families were very large, sometimes with up to 14 members, and it was highly unlikely there would be a property large enough and affordable in Brent or London to accommodate them.

The Committee asked whether there was a strategy pan-London around the homelessness situation. Laurence Coaker explained that the government were considering a Rough Sleeping Homelessness Strategy, and the Council worked collaboratively with other London borough and through London Councils to have pan-London initiatives to tackle homelessness collectively.

As no further issues were raised, the Chair drew the discussion to a close and the Committee RESOLVED to note the content of the report.

During the discussion an information request was raised, recorded as follows:

i)              To provide the number of single homeless people aged 18-25 to Brent Youth Parliament.